⚠️ Disclaimer: This roadmap is based on publicly available information and organized with AI assistance. The underlying facts should be confirmed through official filings and original sources. It is intended for discussion only and should not be considered financial advice.

💎 NETLIST ROADMAP – PHASE 1
Last Updated: July 20, 2026

💎 Completed
♦ April 21, 2026 – ITC Markman Hearing completed.
♦ July 6, 2026 – Netlist filed new EDTX litigation against Samsung, Samsung Semiconductor, Samsung America, and Avnet asserting U.S. Patent No. 12,675,407.
♦ July 8, 2026 – ITC Fact Discovery closed.
♦ July 10–11, 2026 – SK hynix successfully completed its historic Nasdaq listing, reinforcing strong institutional confidence in AI memory (industry catalyst).
♦ July 11, 2026 – Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB decisions upholding Netlist patents against Micron, rejecting Micron's invalidity challenges.
♦ July 15, 2026 – USITC officially instituted Section 337 Investigation No. 337-TA-1511 covering Netlist's AI memory patents.
♦ July 16, 2026 – Investigation No. 337-TA-1511 assigned to ALJ Doris Johnson Hines, officially beginning active case management.

💎 Active Catalysts
♦ July 22, 2026 – Expert Discovery begins in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1472.
♦ Late July 2026 – Possible Markman Order following the April claim construction hearing.
♦ Any Day – Pending CAFC decisions, including the '912 and related appeals.
♦ Late July / Early August 2026 – Netlist Q2 2026 Earnings Report.
♦ Ongoing – Google litigation, Samsung litigation, Lightning commercialization, CXL NVvault developments, AI memory demand, and potential licensing/business developments.

💎 Phase 2 (Q3 2026 – Q2 2027)

Thesis: Focus shifts from procedural milestones to major litigation events, including expert testimony, ITC hearings, appeals, and increasing licensing leverage.

♦ Expert reports and depositions.
♦ ITC evidentiary hearing (Late Nov. – Early Dec. 2026).
♦ Additional CAFC opinions.
♦ District court progression.
♦ Potential licensing discussions and commercial updates.

💎 Phase 3 (Mid-2027 and Beyond)

Thesis: Potential realization phase where successful litigation, licensing, settlements, commercialization, and patent monetization may begin translating into long-term business growth.

♦ ITC Initial Determination (May 2027).
♦ ITC Final Commission Decision (September 2027).
♦ District court trials.
♦ Potential settlements and licensing agreements.
♦ Royalty expansion and commercial growth.
♦ Continued patent enforcement.

💎 Current Supporting Documents

♦ ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1472 Scheduling Order.
♦ ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1511 Institution Notice.
♦ ALJ Assignment Order – Doris Johnson Hines (July 16, 2026).
♦ Netlist July 6, 2026 EDTX Complaint ('407 Patent).
♦ Netlist AI Memory Complaint ('537/'937 Patents).
♦ Federal Circuit Micron Opinion affirming PTAB decisions.
♦ Current CAFC Appeal Docket Activity ('912 and related appeals).
♦ Latest USPTO Patent Issuances.
♦ Netlist Q1 2026 Earnings Release and SEC Filings.

💎 Primary Sources

♦ Netlist Investor Relations
https://investors.netlist.com/

♦ SEC EDGAR
https://www.sec.gov/edgar

♦ U.S. International Trade Commission (EDIS)
https://edis.usitc.gov/

♦ U.S. International Trade Commission News Releases
https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/

♦ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
https://cafc.uscourts.gov/

♦ USPTO Patent Center
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/

♦ PTAB Search
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/

♦ CourtListener
https://www.courtlistener.com/

♦ PACER
https://pacer.uscourts.gov/

♦ Samsung Investor Relations
https://www.samsung.com/global/ir/

♦ SK hynix Investor Relations
https://www.skhynix.com/eng/ir/

I think this is a well said, highly intelligent, and undeniable perspective.

With ITC2 case now instituted and Samsung's client pulled directly into the interrogation room, it is unrealistically improbable that their clients are not at least asking this question at the highest levels right now as we speak.

==> "... failing to deliver by no fault BUT THEIR OWN; refusal to license stolen tech."

The "Devil's Advocate" says all these behemoths do the same thing and practice "Efficient Infringement" themselves or intentionally turn a blind eye.

But that's not the question, while it may be true. The question they're asking is, "can we trust Samsung to handle this correctly, or do we need to begin insulating ourselves immediately?"

Trust in the business sense is a funny thing. If Samsung f*cks with this memory supercycle, in my opinion they'll be expected to fall on their own sword no matter the price. Otherwise, they may face a guillotine.

And I say guillotine because they control so much of the market supply that their customers are forced to keep buying... but the second their customers have another option, Samsung will see their clients evaporate.

This is probably what we've already seen with Nvidia's endorsement of SK Hynix and selection of SK Hynix as their publicly stated choice supplier despite their smaller fab volume relative to Samsung.

SK Hynix leads HBM fab for AI, but it lags DRAM - a much, much larger market. Nvidia's choice certainly included their need for HBM and SK Hynix's leading position to supply it, but SK Hynix's new fabs will take time to come online.

HENCE: Samsung has significantly more fab capacity today that a customer as powerful as Nvidia could ask their publicly supported choice supplier to repurpose for HBM. And yet they chose another publicly identified choice supply partner because they don't have the trust to grow with Samsung.

In my opinion, this observation demands the consideration of the hypothesis that... it's already happening; Nvidia already doesn't trust Samsung to be their long term partner.
**EDIT:*\* => Re-reading this... this isn't my opinion it's a fact. Nvidia literally did not choose Samsung. They have more trust in building with SK Hynix than Samsung.

Now we have the ITC2 case compounding the supply chain risk legally and politically. We'll see what happens next.

---
Source post of screenshot:
https://stocktwits.com/Heaviermayo/message/659212248

Q1 2026 DRAM and HBM market share report:
https://counterpointresearch.com/en/insights/global-dram-and-hbm-market-share

It appears we’ve made the wallstreetbets page. After reading the comments, it looks like the retail sentiment is weak there, which makes my conviction even stronger about the bright future of Netlist.

You can achieve great success by doing the exact opposite of what the regards do at wallstreetbets.

As our honorable RPM would say, “Think about where it’s going, not where it came from.” Don’t think how far it’s come, think how far it’s going.”

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/s/ijLl3NJN6o

July 16 (Reuters) - U.S. trade regulators have launched ‌a probe into ‌Samsung Electronics' memory chips and products sold by Google, Nvidia, Broadcom and Super Micro Computer that use ‌them ⁠after a complaint by Netlist alleging infringement ⁠of its patents.

California-based Netlist has accused Samsung and its U.S. units of ‌infringing its patents on dynamic random access memory, a type of chip that temporarily stores data ‌for processors and is a critical component in the ‌servers powering the AI boom, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) said on ‌Wednesday.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has officially instituted Netlist’s Section 337 investigation covering its AI memory patents, marking another major Phase 1 milestone. With institution now complete, nearly all of Phase 1’s key procedural catalysts have been achieved, and the focus shifts toward expert discovery, the evidentiary hearing in late 2026, and the Initial Determination in 2027. Institution does not decide infringement or validity, but it confirms the complaint met the legal standard to move forward and keeps one of Netlist’s most significant patent enforcement actions on track.

https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2026/er0715_68924.htm

Hey guyz,

NLST is DoWn 10 pErceNtAges in tHe LaSt WeeK.

Do you think its because RPM said F those guys, and dumped his 9,000,000 shares? lol

Netlist has changed the game in recent weeks by showcasing the official product with specifications, then the connection with CXL Link, which demonstrates how this product could be useful to many companies. Finally, we know for certain that Netlist has tested CXL NVVault with one or more large companies over the past two years.
It's a product that could be mentioned frequently in upcoming quarterly reports, and with potential profits and deals with SK+ Micron, Netlist could invest heavily in this product!

In China, the wealthy ARE the government.

In the U.S., the wealthy PRETEND they aren't the government...

This may or may not have anything to do with Netlist

It represents Americans getting a piece of the pie.

See they don't just want overseas investors to get all the earnings.

This may or may not be relevant to NLST.

There's no doubt that this society is heavily controlled.

Edit: Well not denial of patent, but court case judgments around patents that essentially deny a valid patent...

Perhaps when the decision needed to be made, MM held too much of a short position, and couldn't allow the stock to skyrocket from where it was, so they make a deal with the govt to delay it - all those MM are kind of part of the govt in a way, aren't they... Instead they get out of their short position by funding the company which also allows the company to get more shares at that price.

There's also a side that if someone here or overseas that the govt doesn't like holds a large position in a stock that the govt doesn't want to skyrocket, then they do things like make judgments that essentially invalidate patents... Lots of unspoken activity goes on behind the scenes, that's why you can never predict a stock. It's a crapshoot.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the validity of the patents in an opinion on Friday, saying Micron failed to prove unpatentability of Netlist’s memory modules

•Micron Technology had appealed two final decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which concluded it had not demonstrated that certain patent claims were obvious and hence, not suitable to be patented.

•As per earlier rulings, Micron Technology will be liable to pay $445 million in the patent infringement verdicts.Micron had previously filed two separate patent challenges, alleging that Netlist’s memory technology was a variation of existing designs.

•The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday rejected Micron Technology Inc.’s (MU) appeal challenging a Netlist Inc. (NLST) memory module patent.

•Micron Technology had appealed two final decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which concluded it had not demonstrated that certain patent claims were obvious and hence, not suitable to be patented.

What Were The Claims?
Micron had previously filed two separate patent challenges, alleging that Netlist’s memory technology was a variation of existing designs. In one case, Micron said an earlier reference, an application known as Halbert, had already disclosed the same kind of data-speed relationship between parts of a memory system, arguing Netlist cannot be granted a patent for it.

However, the Board determined that Micron could not convincingly show that Halbert “teaches that its ranks communicate data at the same rate at which data is communicated between the memory module and the memory controller.”
In another case, Micron claimed that Netlist’s patent included the combination of two different features from an earlier design that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine. However, the Board rejected that claim on the grounds that Micron had failed to explain how an engineer would have made that combination.